There is nothing renewable about "green energy"

I hope all Republican states will go back to coal.

Only one wing support curbing greed for the greater good. The other support the freearket being paramount unless it interferes with their conservative values too obviously.

This article disagrees.

I really don't care what one article says about core wing definitions.

Ik they're subtley advertised though I didn't know Starbucks did it much, I meant several major brands do it in ways you can't avoid unless you watch no programs or movies etc.

You can hate the source, but the fact remains that both sides regularly vote for the exact same shitty subsidies.

Due to the dynamics of voting, you can't vote or subsidy or policy alone.

Science says, it doesn't know yet.

That's assuming, that it will be worked out eventually.

It knows more than you apparently.

Science most definitely knows there exists no mechanisms to reverse entropy in any closed system.

Feel free to magically hand wave away the 2nd law of thermodynamics though if you have the magic.

Assuming that the Universe is a closed system.

And assuming that the purpose of everything is is not to unclose the system.

Which I suppose is to assume that everything is purposeless.

Science changes it's mind regularly.

And has a few trillion years left in which to regularly do so.

Some might even suggest that space and time have infinite potential.

And therefore everything is closed but infinitely open, and infinitely potent.

No one understands everything GP.

Like I said, this is a good discussion for the religion forum where policy is made on predictions based on faith, not what we know through science at the moment.

Though I suppose that wind and sunshine are reasonably renewable in the long term.

Whereas fossil fuels are not.

And any sort of energy production will inevitably raise environmental concerns.

It's a human problem, as it always is of course.

This is a truism.

Remove the data processing device and there's nothing to worry.

Goes on to talk about metals. Probably the oldest substances known to man for their reusability. 

You should try reading articles sometime. That issue was already addressed in the OP.

Researchers at the US Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory say they might have discovered a loophole in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where the march of entropy can go in the opposite direction. They did this by taking quantum information theory, which is based on a bunch of abstract mathematical systems, and applied it to condensed matter physics, to come up with a new quantum H-theorem model.
"This allowed us to formulate the quantum H-theorem as it related to things that could be physically observed," one of the team, Ivan Sadovskyy, explains.
"It establishes a connection between well-documented quantum physics processes and the theoretical quantum channels that make up quantum information theory."
They say that within their new quantum H-theorem model, there were certain circumstances in which entropy might actually decrease.

Let e know when you find an article without the words "might have"

You are also invited to the religion forum as well.

Well, at least you are saying you are an e.

Entropy can be reduced by people using less energy.

It worked for tens of thousands of years.

It will for sure work for another 100 years, and then I die and dont really care what happens with people after me.

Anyone not buying solar panels for his home will just pay more electric bills.

Or they can move to a state that has nuclear power, pay 10 cents per KWH instead of the 30 cents per KWH in California....

Another philosophy suggests that human satisfaction, stimulates technological evolution and therefore advances material evolution.

And that "nature" is everything and therefore sacrificial.

Everything in nature is a sacrifice. It takes a certain level of religious hubris to believe humans are exempt from the laws of nature and that they can create "renewable energy."

The landfills of wind and solar machines are the legacy of this religion.

We can’t even eat bugs anymore because of climate change. 

Well let's be more specific.

Biology. The biosphere. The ecosystem (which is the interaction of organisms with each other and with inanimate matter and energy).

You can find examples of just about anything in the biosphere; but what strikes more often than anything else is profound efficiency and endless examples of eternal cycles.

Last year I read through all of Liu Cixin's works and he has a story where aliens (kinda) say the universe is the most vulgar display of excess (paraphrasing), the example given is stars.

There is nothing renewable about stars. They are burning through unimaginable amounts of potential nuclear energy (at the cost of increasing entropy) and if they seem stable compared to the life of a biosphere it is only because of the vast scale of the universe (including potential energy) compared to a biosphere.

Yet stars are arguably the most natural thing there is in the universe of dead matter.

So I advance this notion: What is natural to the inanimate universe and what is natural to life are not the same. I'll go further and say that what is natural to life and what is natural to abstract intelligence are not necessarily the same either.

The notion that the non-human biosphere must be destroyed, damaged, or severely diminished for the human biosphere to reach it's "proper glory" is one I take issue with; and that is the notion which unifies all the so called environmental concerns. It explains the irrational objection to nuclear fission and the nitpicking about hydroelectric, wind, and solar.

It is a premise looking for an excuse. The premise being: If it helps man, it hurts the environment. Man must be the problem and the only real solution is less men.

I agree the landfills full of "renewable machines" is a failure and the result of an irrational worldview chosen for emotional resonance (which is a fair definition of a religion).

I can't agree that it is hubris or folly to believe we can't have machines and energy sources that last for much longer than human life spans, or even the life spans of the civilizations we've known.

If we used solar, wind, and geothermal energy we would not be exempting ourselves for the laws of nature we would be emulating the resilience of the biosphere which has been using this energy for millions of years.

Our civilization is being wasteful and it's making quite a mess with all the littering. Mass littering is really the best term, it's not like life can't exist with random bits of trash permeating the soil and sea but that's not a world I want humanity to be forced to live on.

In that sense I am an environmentalist. I have always valued the biosphere and the ecosystems of Earth. I just don't have that religious tenant that human happiness is the root problem so I constrain my complaints to rational ones, such as littering.

We don't need to make these landfills, and there are landfills filled with plenty more than sad attempts at solar and wind power. Before plastics our midden heaps were essentially more of the same refuse that Earth has always been caked in.

I have a deeply unfavorable view of how we're literally burying our messes knowing that they won't degrade, won't rust, and often contain a lot of those elements and compounds we're ripping the earth open to find.

I have solutions, but they aren't solutions self-described environmentalists will accept because they have already decided that anything that gives human beings power (physically and metaphysically) is evil. All my solutions involve lots of power and they won't even compromise with people who want to just keep using the same amount of power.

Regardless one good way to stop throwing so much stuff away is for stuff to stop breaking so damn often. In the case of solar and wind, it's a matter of financial necessity that they last a long time making the poor engineering all the more troublesome.

Essentially a landfill is a hole in the ground full of natural stuff.

In so much as, the human ability to create stuff from natural resources, is a natural process.

Well that's why "appealing to nature" is a fallacy, it doesn't really mean much without relative scope.

In a certain scope a magnatar eating another star and blasting us with so many gamma rays all earth on life dies within a day is natural.

Landfills are a mess and the engineering attitude that leads to them is more of a mess. That's how I feel about it, and yes it is a feeling and not an objective moral dictate as I am usually armed with.

Mess is a human concept...Therefore natural.

You probably quite happily  live in a house filled with all the seemingly necessary gizmos and gadgets.

Most of which will one day end up in a messy hole in the ground.

Q. What is the real difference between the two lots of stuff?

A. Thoughts.

Humans have a unique choice to surrender to entropy, or to fight it. Landfills increase entropy.

I leave you with this poem.